Gauging Farmers' Acceptance of 'Social Barrier' Mechanisms for Preventing Elephant Crop Raids
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Research Article Gajah 50 (2019) 23-28
Gauging Farmers’ Acceptance of ‘Social Barrier’ Mechanisms for Preventing
Elephant Crop Raids
Malachi Stone1, Sagarika Phalke2, Nicholas Warren3, Dilip Kumar AV2 and Avinash Krishnan2*
1
Post Graduate, Conservation and Ecology, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
2
A Rocha India, Bangalore -Karnataka, India
3
A Rocha International, London, UK
*Corresponding author’s email: avinash.krishnan@arocha.org
Abstract. The villages surrounding Bannerghatta National Park, Karnataka experience
high human-elephant conflict in the form of crop loss. Forest Department maintained
elephant barriers are not entirely effective in keeping elephants away from farmlands
and cooperative participation in crop guarding is low. We assessed farmers’ attitudes to
suggestions of community implementation of chilli-tobacco barriers and beehive fences
to prevent crop raiding. We found 64% of the farmers were willing to implement these
methods. Despite the higher effort required, the chilli-tobacco barrier was preferred, due
to lower costs. While commitment by farmers to defend their crops are crucial for problem
control, the study did not show a very high acceptance of community-led barriers and the
attitudes of the farmers towards the Forest Department and elephants were negative.
Introduction 2002). Examples of barriers that could be used
by farmers include bio-fences, chilli-tobacco
Human-elephant conflict (HEC) affects at fences and beehive fences. The effectiveness of
least 500,000 families and causes one million any barrier is dependent on the amount of effort
hectares of crop damage annually in India (Bist that is put into them (Desai & Riddle 2015).
2002; MoEF 2010). Wildlife conflicts have a Therefore they are largely dependent upon the
negative impact on public support and create a community’s willingness to maintain them over
sense of animosity towards conservation efforts the long-term (Rohini et al. 2016; Sampson et al.
(Naughton-Treves & Treves 2005). Therefore, 2019); this maybe in terms of human effort or
the primary concern and conservation goal for financial investment.
the survival of elephants in range countries is the
management of this conflict. Bannerghatta National Park (BNP) (N 12°20’–
50’ and E 77°27’–38’) is situated in the state
There are currently several techniques practised of Karnataka, India. It has an Asian elephant
across South Asia to contain HEC, which are (Elephas maximus) density of 0.63 elephants/
undertaken by state and non-state actors (Fernando km2 (Project Elephant 2017) and supports a
et al. 2008). However, amongst these, the act population of 150–200 elephants (Gopalakrishna
of empowering affected communities to take et al. 2010). The villages around BNP witness
responsibility for preventive action is considered a high incidence of HEC (Varma et al. 2009;
the most sustainable; and is also known to decrease Suresh 2018). Currently a number of deterrent
incidences of retaliatory killing (Zimmermann methods are used. There are eight physical
et al. 2009; Davies et al. 2011; Scheijen et al. barrier mechanisms that are maintained by the
2019). These empowering approaches encourage forest department to contain conflict, which
farmers to actively participate in protecting cover 70% of the park boundary. These are
their own crops and thereby ease the pressure in the form of solar electric fences, elephant
on wildlife management; facilitating better proof trenches, rubble walls, concrete walls,
interactions between the two (Osborn & Parker concrete moats, spike pillars, spike gates and
© 2019 The Authors - Open Access Manuscript Editor: Prithiviraj Fernando
23mesh barriers (Gayathri et al. 2016). However, (Osborn & Parker 2002). A questionnaire was
these multiple barriers do not prevent elephants administered to male farmers between the ages
moving out of the protected area into farmlands. 18–60 (Mabeluanga & Krishnan 2018). The
These barriers are often made ineffective due to questionnaires were conducted by a bi-lingual
structural errors and by local communities who interviewer in the local language (Kannada) and
damage them to enter the park for cattle grazing responses were recorded in English. The survey
or firewood collection (Saklani et al. 2018). consisted of a structured questionnaire with a
Crops are also guarded with traditional deterrents mixture of open, closed and multiple-choice
such as firecrackers, chasing and noise. However, questions. Questions covered the respondent’s
these methods increase the risk of injury for both demography, dependency on agriculture and
humans and elephants (Varma et al. 2009). existing community-cooperative methods to
mitigate conflict. Participants were then given
The status of community cooperation in crop a 5-minute educational presentation on CTBs
protection and attitudes towards community- and BHFs. The presentation focussed on the
led barriers remains relatively unstudied in the mechanism of the fences, their implementation,
landscape. In 2009 the chilli-tobacco barrier challenges and their associated costs and in
(CTB) was pilot-tested at Bannerghatta and addition, expected revenue in the case of BHF.
showed varying degrees of success. While The costs for each of the barrier systems were
interest was expressed by community members, calculated for one acre of farmland because
the up-take of the method remained relatively individual farms in Bannerghatta average
poor (Varma et al. 2009). Beehive fences (BHF) between 1–3 acres in area and are generally
have been tested in parts of Africa and Asia as spread out (Mabeluanga et al. 2016). While the
a method to mitigate HEC and create additional presentation concentrated on farmers using these
income for farmers (Save the elephants 2019). methods as a barrier for individual farms, it also
In India, a study was conducted in Kerala on the suggested the possibility of cooperation between
BHF and was found to be effective in mitigating farmers to reduce costs. The participants were
conflict (Nair & Eluvathingal 2016). However then asked about their perceptions on the efficacy
factors such as topography, socio-political and likelihood of up-take, of the two barriers.
differences, and local practises differ between
landscapes and could have an impact on the Summary of the main points communicated to the
efficacy of barriers. farmers
Before attempting to introduce this system • The estimated cost to cover a one-acre farm
into Bannerghatta we wanted to understand plot with a BHF was Rs 36,000- Rs 40,000
the community’s attitudes and possibility of and with a CTB Rs 4,200.
acceptance of such measures. The objectives • It would take 8.5 man-hours to install a CTB
of the study were to (1) understand the factors fence and would take 4–6 hours to maintain
that influence farmers’ decisions in accepting the fence at least 2–3 times a month. The
community-led interventions to mitigate HEC, cost would be Rs 110 per maintenance.
(2) assess existing community methods to • For every 20 beehives approximately 10–
manage HEC, and (3) explore the possibility of 15 kg of honey can be harvested (Nair &
implementing CTBs and BHFs at Bannerghatta. Eluvathingal 2016). With the cost of 1 kg of
honey amounting to ~Rs 120–160 (wholesale
Methods market price at the time of study).
• A beekeeper could be hired to provide
Interviews were conducted of 101 farmers in technical support and could assist in
36 park-edge villages of Bannerghatta National installing the BHF. However, farmers would
Park, from July to August 2018. Villages that still be expected to provide water to every
experienced high, medium and low conflict were beehive, sugar water during low flowering
selected based on crop damage incidents in 2017 seasons and adequate shade. It would take
248–15 hours per week to maintain a beehive (i.e. 50% of the time they experienced crop
colony (Government of India 2018). damage) while the rest (n = 38) never applied for
compensation. Previous studies have also shown
The responses from the questionnaires were a marked difference between crop compensation
transferred onto Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, claimed and actual levels of conflict (Pant et al.
which was also used to analyse the descriptive 2016). The fact that in Bannerghatta, only 2% of
statistics. The analysis of inferential statistics farmers consistently claimed for compensation
was conducted using R Studio. A chi-square reflects issues with the process such as difficulty
test of independence was performed on various of application, logistical issues, extended time in
factors to understand its influence in villager’s processing applications and dissatisfaction with
acceptance of the two barriers. These factors compensation amounts. Dissatisfaction with
focussed on the cost of implementing barrier, compensation may result in negative attitudes
frequency and intensity of conflict experienced of farmers towards the Forest Department
and agriculture as a primary source of income. and also decrease tolerance towards elephants
(Mabeluanga et al. 2016).
Results and discussion
Farmers also viewed HEC as a problem of
Status of HEC in Bannerghatta the Forest Department and questioned why
they should be expected to finance a solution
Crop depredation by elephants predominantly to a problem caused by “the government’s”
ranged across five months (September – animals. This view appears to correspond to
February) of the year. These findings concur with other studies where villagers view the Forest
previously recorded observations of peak conflict Department as the only stakeholder in conflict
in the landscape, coinciding with the maturing of mitigation, and expect the government to finance
seasonal crops such as finger millet (Eleusine mitigation measures (Ogra 2009; Rohini et al.
coracana) and jowar (Sorghum bicolor) (Varma 2016). Therefore, co-managing conflict by the
et al. 2009; Mabeluanga et al. 2016; Pant et al. government and farmers is important to foster
2016). cooperation and improve relations.
Understanding the extent of the conflict is The majority of farmers interviewed (52%)
important to understand the willingness and guarded their own crops without engaging in
motivation of farmers to engage in a conflict community collaboration and 31% did not guard
mitigation intervention. Of the 101 farmers their crops. Conflict not only incurs financial
interviewed, 99% (n = 100) experienced crop costs, but also causes social and psychological
damage by elephants during the past five years issues. This is because crop guarding involves
(2013–2017). Farmers experienced similar levels considerable human investment, and is needed
of conflict intensity in all the five years with mostly at night, which results in social ruptures
no significant variation between years (Table1) in a family, poor well-being and increased risk of
(one-way ANOVA, F = 0.08, p = 0.98). This death and injury (Barua et al. 2013). Therefore
highlights the extent of conflict experienced by even though famers experienced conflict, there
farmers in Bannerghatta, which is concurrent with
experiences from other landscapes experiencing Table 1. Average percentage of crop damaged
HEC such as Parsa Wildlife Reserve, Nepal (Pant by elephants across five years.
et al. 2016) and Manas National Park, Assam Year % Crop damage Variance
(Nath et al. 2015). 2013 39.8 ±5.3
2014 39.0 ±5.8
Of the respondents 2% (n = 2) applied for crop
compensation every time they experienced 2015 38.8 ±5.5
crop damage by elephants. The majority 60% 2016 38.0 ±6.7
(n = 60) applied for compensation sometimes 2017 38.0 ±9.2
25may be factors that prevent them from engaging by elephants in the past year v/s other years. In
in active crop guarding. This suggests potential addition, farmers who experienced ≥ 40% of crop
for a community-led barrier being implemented. damage were more open to use of the barriers than
farmers experiencing smaller losses. However, it
In the study area currently there is no cooperation was found that the cost of CTB did not influence
when it comes to crop defence amongst farmers; the decision to accept (p < 0.05).
and they were unwilling to work together and
did not have a sense of “unity”. Unless there is The effectiveness of CTB appears to be varied.
cooperation in implementing barriers such as CTB Chilli deterrents appear to have a significant
and BHF, there is a high possibility of the conflict effect in Africa against elephant crop-raids
shifting to adjoining farmlands. Elephants have (Chang’a et al. 2016) and have shown some
been observed to walk along BHFs in Kenya and success in low-rainfall areas in India (Chelliah
Tanzania until they reach a point they can cross et al. 2010). However, in Sumatra, when used
(Scheijen et al. 2019). Collective guarding and in combination with conventional guarding
cooperative action amongst local communities methods, it was found to have no added benefit
is important to mitigate and sustain long-term (Hedges & Gunaryadi 2010). In Bannerghatta, a
management of HEC (Mumby & Plotnik 2018; pilot-test showed a success of 99% in preventing
Nyirenda et al. 2018). Therefore, the current lack elephants from entering a test-plot over a 52-day
of co-management of the problem could decrease period (Varma et al. 2009). Despite its success the
the success of any community-led initiative. CTB was not continued and its implementation
ceased due to lack of resources to support farmers
Perceptions of community-led barriers and (A. Krishnan, pers. comm.). While Bannerghatta
factors influencing their implementation experiences low-rainfall, whether the CTB can
be sustained over a longer period needs to be
The survey found 64% of the farmers were tested.
willing to implement CTBs or BHFs with 34%
favouring CTB, 11% BHF and 19% willing to The success of the BHF in Africa is predominantly
try both. CTB was opted for almost three-times due to the aggressive nature of the African
more than BHF despite it requiring more labour honeybee (Apis mellifera scutellata) and the re-
and maintenance. Therefore the cost of the sponse of African elephants (Loxodonta africana)
community-led barrier plays a significant role towards them (King et al. 2007). In India, there
when it comes to implementation. Measures with are mainly two species of bees used in apiculture-
low costs and materials which can be sourced the European honeybee (Apis mellifera) and the
locally, appears to be preferred by farmers. Indian honeybee (Apis cerana indica). While the
former produces a larger crop of honey, it is rarely
A Pearson’s Chi-Squared test of independence used in South India due to limited availability of
was conducted to see whether the crops grown, flowers that can support colonies and therefore,
a farmer’s economic status, time since the last the bees need to be intensively managed
attack and severity of crop damage had any (providing feed of sugar-water) (Kishan Tej et
significant effect on the farmer’s decision on al. 2017). Rearable bees in India are thought
employing new barriers. Results indicated (p to be inactive at night. This is when most crop
> 0.05) the following factors have an influence raiding by elephants occurs in Bannerghatta
on implementing the barriers. Acceptance was (Varma et al. 2009) and elsewhere. Therefore
found to be greater when farming was the only the possibility that Asian bees do not defend
source of income v/s having an alternate source their hives at night needs to be investigated. The
of income/job. If the majority of the harvest was BHF has only been tested in Kerala and certain
used for personal consumption as compared to parts of North Karnataka (Save the Elephants
selling it, farmers were more likely to implement 2019). Preliminary results from Kerala show that
the barriers. Farmers acceptance was found to elephants are less likely to enter fields protected
be higher if they experienced crop depredations by the BHF. A total of 14 instances of elephant
26presence were recorded during the study period. Desai A & Riddle H (2015) Human-Elephant
Only five of those occurred at the BHF, of which Conflict in Asia. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service.
three occasion’s elephants failed to cross the
broken (Nair & Eluvathingal 2016). While this
method may have shortcomings, it holds potential Fernando P, Kumar MA, Williams AC,
as a supplementary source of income to partially Wikramanayake E, Aziz T & Singh SM (2008)
compensate the monetary crop loss experienced. Review of Human-Elephant Conflict Mitigation
Measures Practiced in South Asia. WWF.
Acknowledgements
Our heartfelt thanks to the local farmers of
Bannerghatta who participated in the survey Gayathri A, Sulaiman A, Kumar D, Phalke S
and allowed us to share their thoughts. We are & Krishnan A (2016) Status of Elephant Proof
grateful to Ramacharan and Sandeepa M.S for Barrier Mechanisms in Bannerghatta National
their contribution to statistical analyses. Riju Park. Technical report, A Rocha India, Bengaluru.
Nair (Kerala Forest Research Institute) and B.V
Apoorva (Hive Trust) shared their time and Gopalakrishna SP, Somashekar RK, Anand VD &
knowledge on the BHF and apiculture, and we Varma S (2010) Asian elephant and Bannerghatta
are indebted to them. We sincerely thank Prem National Park in Eastern Ghats, Southern India.
Mitra, Aswath Honnavar and SurendraVarma for Gajah 33: 47-52
their support and unfailing encouragement.
Government of India (2018) Honey Mission.
References Technical report, Ministry of Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises.
costs. Biological Conservation 157: 309-316.
Hedges S & Gunaryadi D (2010) Reducing
Bist SS (2002) An overview of elephant con- human-elephant conflict: Do chillies help deter
servation in India. Indian Forester 128: 121-136. elephants from entering crop fields? Oryx 44:
139-146.
Chang’a A, de Souza N, Muya J, et al. (2016)
Scaling-up the use of chilli fences for reducing King LE, Douglas-Hamilton I & Vollrath F
human-elephant conflict across landscapes in (2007) African elephants run away from the
Tanzania. Tropical Conservation Science 9: 921- sound of disturbed bees. Current Biology 17:
930. 832-833.
Chelliah K, Kannan G, Kundu S, Abilash N, Kishan Tej M, Aruna R, Mishra G & Srinivasan
Madhusudan A, Baskaran N & Sukumar R MR (2017) Beekeeping in India. In: Industrial
(2010) Testing the efficacy of a chilli–tobacco Entomology. Omkar (ed) Springer Nature,
rope fence as a deterrent against crop-raiding Singapore. pp 35-66.
elephants. Current Science 9: 1239-1243
Mabeluanga T, Dilipkumar AV, Gayathri A
Davies TE, Wilson S, Hazarika N, Chakrabarty & Krishnan A (2016) Influence of elephant-
J, Das D, Hodgson DJ & Zimmermann A (2011) human interactions on agrarian communities
Effectiveness of intervention methods against in the Bengaluru-Bannerghatta landscape – A
crop-raiding elephants. Conservation Letters 4: perspective survey. Gajah 45: 28-32.
346-354.
27Mabeluanga W & Krishnan A (2018) Economic Pant G, Dhakal M, Pradhan NMB, Leverington
Implications of Risk Mainly Caused by Human- F & Hockings M (2016) Nature and extent of
Wildlife Conflict on Small and Marginal Farm human–elephant Elephas maximus conflict in
Household’s Income in the Eco-Sensitive Zone of central Nepal. Oryx 50: 724-731.
Bannerghatta National Park, Karnataka, South
India. Report, A Rocha India, Bangalore. Project Elephant (2017) Synchronised Elephant
Population Estimation. Ministry of Environment,
MoEF (2010) Gajah: Securing the Future for Forests and Climate Change, New Delhi.
Mumby H & Plotnik JM (2018) Taking the
elephants’ perspective: Remembering elephant Rohini CK, Aravindan T, Anoop Das KS
behavior, cognition and ecology in human- &Vinayan PA (2016) Human-elephant conflict
elephant conflict mitigation. Frontiers in Ecology around North and South Forest Divisions of
and Evolution 6: 1-8. Nilambur, Kerala, India. Gajah 45: 20-27
Nair R & Eluvathingal J (2016) Effectiveness of Saklani A, Kumar D, Gayathri A& Krishnan A
beehive fences to deter crop raiding elephants in (2018) Therailway-line fence: A new passive
Kerala, India. International Research Journal of elephant barrier at Bannerghatta National Park,
Natural and Applied Sciences 3: 14-19. Southern India. Gajah 48: 20-23
Nath KN, Lahkar P, Dutta SK & Das JP (2015) Sampson C, Leimgruber P, Rodriguez S, McEvoy
Human-elephant conflict around Manas National J, Sotherden E &Tonkyn D (2019) Perception
Park, India: Local people’s attitudes, expectations of human-elephant conflict and conservation
and perceptions. Gajah 42: 15-21. attitudes of affected communities in Myanmar.
Tropical Conservation Science 12: 1-17.
Naughton-Treves L & Treves A (2005) Socio-
ecological factors shaping local support for Save the Elephants (2019) Beehive Fence.
wildlife: Crop-raiding by elephants and other
wildlife in Africa. In: People and Wildlife:
Conflict or Coexistence? Woodroffee R, Thirgood Scheijen CPJ, Richards SA, Smit J, Jones T &
S & Rabinowitz A (eds) Cambridge University Nowak K (2019) Efficacy of beehive fences as
Press, Cambridge, UK. pp 252-277. barriers to African elephants: A case study in
Tanzania. Oryx 53: 92-99.
Nyirenda VR, Nkhata BA, Tembo O & Sia-
mundele S (2018) Elephant crop damage: Sub- Suresh R (2018) Wildlife Management Plan for
sistence farmers’ social vulnerability, livelihood Bannerghatta National Park 2018-19 to 2020-
sustainability and elephant conservation. 24. Karnataka Forest Department.
Sustainability 10: 3572.
Varma S, Anand VD, Gopalakrishna SP, Avinash
Ogra M (2009) Attitudes toward resolution of KG & Nishant MS (2009) Ecology, Conservation
human-wildlife conflict among forest-dependent and Management of the Asian Elephant in
agriculturalists near Rajaji National Park, India. Bannerghatta National Park, Southern India. A
Human Ecology 37: 161-177. Rocha India/ANCF, Bangalore.
Osborn FV & Parker GE (2002) Community- Zimmermann A, Davies TE, Hazarika N,
based methods to reduce crop loss to elephants: WilsonS,Chakrabarty J, Hazarika B & Das
Experiments in the communal lands of Zimbabwe. D (2009) Community-based human-elephant
Pachyderm 33: 32-38. conflict management in Assam. Gajah 30: 34-40.
28You can also read
